DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-15 submitted on 10/15/2025 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent application No. IN202241040809, filed on 01/16/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1, 4-9 are directed to a machine and claims 10, 13-15 are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
a system (100) for generating a hierarchy for product categories, the system (100) comprising:
receive a dataset (2) from a user (3), wherein the dataset (2) comprises a first mapping (4) related to unique product identifiers (5) each identifying one or more products mapped to one or more category identifiers (6) or a second mapping (7) related to unique category identifiers (6) mapped to one or more product identifiers (5);
process the dataset (2) based on a predefined set of rules (11) to sort the category identifiers (6) in an ascending order based on a number of products identifiers (5) mapped to each of the category identifiers (6);
analyse the sorted list (13) of category identifiers (6) and the related unique product identifier (5) mappings to discover an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each category identifier (6) such that each category identifier (6) shall be having at least one immediate superset category identifier (14), wherein the analysis comprises comparing the product identifier mappings of each category identifier with those of other category identifiers to determine if one category set is wholly contained within another category's product identifier set, and assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category identifier (14), in response to identifying one or more category identifiers (6) that do not have an immediate superset category identifier (14), create a dummy category identifier (20), initialized at once, as an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each of the category identifiers (6) that do not have an immediate superset category identifier (14), discard, from the plurality of sorted category identifiers (6) from the sorted list (13) that have product count less than a predefined threshold (18) and that have at least one immediate superset category identifier (14);
generate the hierarchy of product categories representing the hierarchical relationships between the category identifiers (6), and the superset category identifiers (14), including any created dummy category identifiers (20), wherein said hierarchy is stored.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction. Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
a system (100) for generating a hierarchy for product categories, the system (100) comprising:
an input unit (1) adapted to receive a dataset (2) from a user device (3), wherein the dataset (2) comprises a first mapping (4) related to unique product identifiers (5) each identifying one or more products mapped to one or more category identifiers (6) or a second mapping (7) related to unique category identifiers (6) mapped to one or more product identifiers (5);
a hierarchy establishing unit (9), comprising one or more hardware processor configured to execute instructions stored in a non-transitory memory, the hierarchy establishing unit (9) configured to: process the dataset (2) based on a predefined set of rules (11) to sort the category identifiers (6) in an ascending order based on a number of products identifiers (5) mapped to each of the category identifiers (6);
analyse the sorted list (13) of category identifiers (6) and the related unique product identifier (5) mappings to discover an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each category identifier (6) such that each category identifier (6) shall be having at least one immediate superset category identifier (14), wherein the analysis comprises comparing the product identifier mappings of each category identifier with those of other category identifiers to determine if one category set is wholly contained within another category's product identifier set, and assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category identifier (14), in response to identifying one or more category identifiers (6) that do not have an immediate superset category identifier (14), wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to create a dummy category identifier (20), initialized at once, as an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each of the category identifiers (6) that do not have an immediate superset category identifier (14), wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to discard, from the plurality of sorted category identifiers (6) from the sorted list (13) that have product count less than a predefined threshold (18) and that have at least one immediate superset category identifier (14);
generate the hierarchy of product categories representing the hierarchical relationships between the category identifiers (6), and the superset category identifiers (14), including any created dummy category identifiers (20), wherein said hierarchy is stored in a non-transitory memory and rendered for display.
Claim 10 includes the same additional elements as claim 1.
The additional elements recited in claims 1 and 10 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of computers (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Pages 10, 11, and 20).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1 and 10 are acknowledged, claims 1 and 10 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 and 10 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 10 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1 and 10 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-9 and 13-15 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 4-9 and 13-15 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 and 10 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Claims 4-9 and 13-15 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 4-9 and 13-15 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reuther et al. (US 2007/0250487 A1 [previously cited]) in view of Dom et al. (US 2007/0214140 A1 [previously cited]) in view of Plevyak et al. (US 2016/0063090 A1 [previously cited]).
Regarding Claim 1, Reuther et al., hereinafter, Reuther, a system (100) for generating a hierarchy for product categories, the system (100) comprising (Fig. 1; Abstract):
an input unit (1) adapted to receive a dataset (2) from a user device (3), wherein the dataset (2) comprises a first mapping (4) related to unique product identifiers (5) each identifying one or more products mapped to one or more category identifiers (6) or a second mapping (7) related to unique category identifiers (6) mapped to one or more product identifiers (5) (Fig. 2; ¶¶0075-0076[In block 210, the Source Connector module 140 may request a source taxonomy from a Content Source 150. In block 212, the Content Source 150 may receive the request and may return the requested source taxonomy to the Source Connector module 140]; Examiner notes that the taxonomy is comparable to a mapping of products with categories in view of ¶0047[The Taxonomy Management Client 110 may include a mobile device or other communication device, including a terminal, such as, but not limited to, a kiosk or desktop computer] in view of Fig. 6 showing product identifiers identifying one or more products such as “Armani” and “Hermes”);
a hierarchy establishing unit (9), comprising one or more hardware processor configured to execute instructions stored in a non-transitory memory, the hierarchy establishing unit (9) configured to (Fig. 1; ¶0118[Additionally, various and combinations of entities may employ a computer to implement the components performing the above-described functions. According to an embodiment of the disclosure, the computer may be a standard computer comprising an input device, an output device, a processor device, and a data storage device] in view of Abstract):
process the dataset (2) based on a predefined set of rules (11) to sort the category identifiers (6) in an ascending order based on a number of products identifiers (5) mapped to each of the category identifiers (6) (Fig. 2; ¶¶0076-0082[In block 232, the Taxonomy Processor module 134 may reformat the source taxonomy from the publisher's preferred format into a format used by the Taxonomy Management… In block 243, the Category Content Processor module 136 may extract features from each of the retrieved content items. The extracted features may be used to create a category content profile by determining relevant evidence terms from the content items that may be used to categorize a content item within a particular category of the taxonomy] in view of ¶0102[Intra-taxonomy mappings may associate categories in the same taxonomy to create taxonomies as hierarchical trees with categories having parent-child relationships. These relationships may partition the controlled vocabulary into sub-trees of categories, which may facilitate categorization and may improve usability for information retrieval]; Examiner notes that hierarchical tree categories are comparable to an ascending order of product to category mappings where the top category includes all the categories and items within as seen on Fig. 5);
analyse the sorted list (13) of category identifiers (6) and the related unique product identifier (5) mappings to discover an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each category identifier (6) such that each category identifier (6) shall be having at least one immediate superset category identifier (14) (Figs. 4 and 5[showing the superset category identifiers]; ¶0102[Intra-taxonomy mappings may associate categories in the same taxonomy to create taxonomies as hierarchical trees with categories having parent-child relationships. These relationships may partition the controlled vocabulary into sub-trees of categories, which may facilitate categorization and may improve usability for information retrieval] in view of ¶0114[The exemplary taxonomy management methods and apparatuses may be implemented using computer software and hardware information search and retrieval platforms for mobile devices, in analyzing and categorizing queries for information.]; Examiner notes that a parent is comparable to an immediate superset category identifier),
wherein the analysis comprises comparing the product identifier mappings of each category identifier with those of other category identifiers to determine if one category set is wholly contained within another category's product identifier set (Figs. 2-3; ¶0079[Starting at a root category, the Category Content Processor module 136 proceeds to each category within the source taxonomy and may complete each of blocks 241-245 discussed below. In block 241, the Category Content Processor module 136 may query the Content Source 150 associated with the source taxonomy for a category content item result set. The category content item result set may identify all of the content items in the source taxonomy associated with a particular category. For example, the category content item result set may include a list of the current news headlines or all the downloadable Pop music ringtones. For each content item in the category content item result, the Category Content Processor module 136 may identify a taxonomy category label, metadata associated with each content item, and also may scrape content of interest from websites/pages.] in view of ¶¶0087-0097[In block 320, the Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may prompt a user to select and/or build a comparator function. The comparator function may be used by the Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 to identify a match. A match may be defined as a relationship between content profiles being above a pre-specified threshold. The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may compare a first category profile to a second category profile to determine whether a match exists]; Examiner notes that a relationship between content profiles of categories is comparable to comparing the mappings of each category with those of other categories to determine if one category set is contained within another), and
assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category identifier (14), in response to identifying one or more category identifiers (6) that have an immediate superset category identifier (14) (Figs. 4 and 5[showing the superset category identifiers]; ¶0087[The comparator function may be used by the Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 to identify a match. A match may be defined as a relationship between content profiles being above a pre-specified threshold. The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may compare a first category profile to a second category profile to determine whether a match exists] in view of ¶0061[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may manage the process of creating the new taxonomies by merging one or more existing taxonomies using, for example, a tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a breadth-first search, and by comparing category content profiles generated by the Category Content Processor module 136.]; Examiner notes that merging categories with matching content is comparable to assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category in response to identifying categories),
wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to create a category identifier (20), initialized at once, as an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each of the category identifiers (6) that have an immediate superset category identifier (14) (Fig. 2; ¶¶0081-0082[In block 243, the Category Content Processor module 136 may extract features from each of the retrieved content items. The extracted features may be used to create a category content profile by determining relevant evidence terms from the content items that may be used to categorize a content item within a particular category of the taxonomy.]),
wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to discard, from the plurality of sorted category identifiers (6) from the sorted list (13) and that have at least one immediate superset category identifier (14) (Fig. 5; ¶0050[The Display Editor Role may permit a user to create, update, and delete their own display taxonomies and to read a limited selection from a reference taxonomy]);
generate the hierarchy of product categories representing the hierarchical relationships between the category identifiers (6), and the superset category identifiers (14), including any created category identifiers (20), wherein said hierarchy is stored in a non-transitory memory and rendered for display (Fig. 1[elements 111, 144, and 134] and Fig. 2; ¶¶0082-0084[In block 243, the Category Content Processor module 136 may extract features from each of the retrieved content items. The extracted features may be used to create a category content profile by determining relevant evidence terms from the content items that may be used to categorize a content item within a particular category of the taxonomy… In block 245, the Category Content Processor module 136 may store the category profile for each of the taxonomy categories in the Taxonomy Content Repository 144. The Category Content Processor module 136 may repeat blocks 241-245 for each category within the taxonomy.]).
Although Reuther discloses creating category identifiers, Reuther does not explicitly disclose categories that do not have an immediate superset category.
Although Reuther discloses creating category identifier, Reuther does not explicitly disclose creating a dummy category identifier for categories that do not have an immediate superset category identifier.
Although Reuther discloses generating a hierarchy of product categories, Reuther does not explicitly disclose creating dummy category identifiers.
However, Dom et al., hereinafter, Dom, teaches creating a dummy category ID for a category that does not have an immediate category (Fig. 1; ¶0034[Categorizer 102 determines, for each product offer record received, which category in the target scheme is most appropriate for the product represented by the product offer record. In one embodiment, categorizer 102 determines both a target category, and a confidence value… When the confidence value for a particular product-to-category assignment is low (or the cost of miscategorization is high), the product offer record may be sent to quality asurance 110 for manual review. At quality assurance, a relatively more expansive analysis is performed on the product offer record to determine the appropriate target category for the product represented by the record.]; Examiner notes that a category ID that is being changed or corrected is comparable to a dummy category).
The system of Dom is applicable to the system of Reuther as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to item categorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization technique as disclosed by Reuther to include dummy category IDs as taught by Dom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Reuther in order to improve categorization accuracy within a product categorization system (¶0031).
Although Reuther discloses discarding from categories, Reuther in view of Dom does not explicitly teach discarding lists that have product count less than a predefined threshold (18).
However, Plevyak et al., hereinafter, Plevyak, teaches discarding lists with less than a threshold content count (Fig. 4; ¶¶0062-0063[At step 418, it is determined whether any counters have dropped below a threshold value. According to an embodiment, the threshold may be set to 1. For example, one or more counters may drop to a value below 1 due to the decrementing in step 416. If it is determined at step 418, that one or more counters have dropped to less than the threshold, then at step 420, those entries with the counters below the threshold are removed from the priority queue. Note that when one or more entries are removed from the priority queue at step 420, the priority queue is no longer full.]).
The system of Plevyak is applicable to the system of Reuther in view of Dom as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are targeted to item categorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization technique as taught by Reuther in view of Dom to include dummy category IDs as taught by Dom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Reuther in view of Dom in order to yield improved performance, for example, by reducing the amount of re-ordering to be performed upon elements in the ordered set (¶0037).
Regarding Claim 4, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the system (100) as claimed in claim 1, Reuther further discloses wherein if two or more category identifiers contain identical product identifiers, then the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to align such category identifiers at the same hierarchy (Fig. 3; ¶0071[The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 also may include a process to automatically compare content of two or more taxonomies and may suggest matching categories in a new taxonomy] in view of ¶0087; Examiner notes that matching contents is comparable to identical products).
Regarding Claim 5, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the system (100) as claimed in claim 1, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to discover the plurality of immediate subset category identifiers (19) for each immediate superset category identifier (14) by analysing the sorted list (13) of the category identifiers (6) and the plurality of their immediate superset category identifiers (14) (Fig. 5; ¶0072[The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 may provide creation and maintenance of a taxonomy (from multiple pre-existing taxonomies and their associated documents), intra-taxonomy mappings (between categories in the same taxonomy), inter-taxonomy category mappings (between categories in different taxonomy), categorization maintenance: mitigate category and evidence drift and obsolescence, generate taxonomy extension, categorization error analysis, and review and approval workflow for verifying taxonomy, category, evidence, and metadata creation, update, and translation.]; Examiner notes that analyzing intra taxonomy mapping is comparable to discovering immediate subset category identifiers for superset categories. ).
Regarding Claim 6, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the system (100) as claimed in claim 5, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to generate a complete category hierarchy (21) by using a tree traversal technique to recursively traverse through the plurality of immediate subset category identifiers (19) of each of the immediate superset category identifiers (14) starting from the category identifier (21) (Fig. 3; ¶0061[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may manage the process of creating the new taxonomies by merging one or more existing taxonomies using, for example, a tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a breadth-first search, and by comparing category content profiles generated by the Category Content Processor module 136.] in view of ¶0085[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may use an efficient tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a depth-first or breadth-first search to walk the first taxonomy and visit each category. The flow diagram may begin at block 310.]).
Although Reuther discloses creating category identifiers, Reuther does not explicitly disclose creating a dummy category identifier for categories.
However, Dom teaches creating a dummy category ID for a category that does not have an immediate category (Fig. 1; ¶0034[Categorizer 102 determines, for each product offer record received, which category in the target scheme is most appropriate for the product represented by the product offer record. In one embodiment, categorizer 102 determines both a target category, and a confidence value… When the confidence value for a particular product-to-category assignment is low (or the cost of miscategorization is high), the product offer record may be sent to quality asurance 110 for manual review. At quality assurance, a relatively more expansive analysis is performed on the product offer record to determine the appropriate target category for the product represented by the record.]; Examiner notes that a category ID that is being changed or corrected is comparable to a dummy category).
The system of Dom is applicable to the system of Reuther as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to item categorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization technique as disclosed by Reuther to include dummy category IDs as taught by Dom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Reuther in order to improve categorization accuracy within a product categorization system (¶0031).
Regarding Claim 7, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the system (100) as claimed in claim 6, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to traverse through the complete category hierarchy (21) to obtain a category-product relationship information (15) for each product with respect to each of its category identifiers (6), and category-category relationship information (8) related to correlation of each category identifiers (6) with respect to each other, wherein the category relationship information (8) comprises level-wise information (12), parent-child path (16), and child-parent path (17) amongst the category identifiers (6) (Fig. 3; ¶0085[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may use an efficient tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a depth-first or breadth-first search to walk the first taxonomy and visit each category. The flow diagram may begin at block 310.] in view of ¶0072[The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 may provide creation and maintenance of a taxonomy (from multiple pre-existing taxonomies and their associated documents), intra-taxonomy mappings (between categories in the same taxonomy), inter-taxonomy category mappings (between categories in different taxonomy), categorization maintenance: mitigate category and evidence drift and obsolescence, generate taxonomy extension, categorization error analysis, and review and approval workflow for verifying taxonomy, category, evidence, and metadata creation, update, and translation. The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 also may analyze documents pre-classified at Content Sources 150 using source taxonomies to suggest mappings between taxonomy categories.]).
Regarding Claim 8, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the system (100) as claimed in claim 6, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) uses depth first search (DFS), BFS, A* or any other tree traversal technique to traverse through each of the plurality of category identifiers (6) (Fig. 3; ¶0085[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may use an efficient tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a depth-first or breadth-first search to walk the first taxonomy and visit each category. The flow diagram may begin at block 310.]).
Regarding Claim 9, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the system (100) as claimed in claim 1, Reuther further discloses wherein the identifiers (5, 6) comprises a series of numerical digits or alphabetical characters or alphanumeric characters (¶0031[Query: may refer to a request that describes or identifies information or data being sought by the user or the taxonomy management system. The query may include various combinations of text, non-text, and/or categories. For example, queries may include keywords (e.g., terms, phrases, natural-language sentences), as well as non-text queries (e.g. multimedia such as pictures or audio clips, and/or numerical queries such as auction bids, purchase prices, or travel dates), and/or categories (e.g. music genres such as Rock, Pop, or Urban)]).
Regarding Claim 10, Reuther discloses a method (200) for generating a hierarchy for product categories, the method (200) comprises: receiving (201) a dataset (2), by an input unit (1), wherein the dataset (2) comprises a first mapping (4) related to unique product identifiers (5) each identifying one or more products mapped to one or more category identifiers (6), or a second mapping (7) related to unique category identifiers (6) mapped to one or more product identifiers (5) (Fig. 2; ¶¶0075-0076[In block 210, the Source Connector module 140 may request a source taxonomy from a Content Source 150. In block 212, the Content Source 150 may receive the request and may return the requested source taxonomy to the Source Connector module 140… In block 232, the Taxonomy Processor module 134 may reformat the source taxonomy from the publisher's preferred format into a format used by the Taxonomy Management Server System 130.] in view of ¶0047[The Taxonomy Management Client 110 may include a mobile device or other communication device, including a terminal, such as, but not limited to, a kiosk or desktop computer.] in view of Fig. 6 showing product identifiers identifying one or more products such as “Armani” and “Hermes”);
processing (202) the dataset (2), by a hierarchy establishing unit (9) comprising one or more hardware processor configured to execute instructions stored in a non-transitory memory, based on a predefined set of rules to generate the second mapping (7) if the first mapping (4) is provided in the dataset (2), and to generate the first mapping (4) if the second mapping (7) is provided in the dataset (2); sorting (204) the category identifiers (6), by the hierarchy establishing unit (9), in an ascending order based on a number of products mapped to each of the category identifiers (6) (Figs. 1 and 2; ¶¶0076-0084[In block 232, the Taxonomy Processor module 134 may reformat the source taxonomy from the publisher's preferred format into a format used by the Taxonomy Management… In block 236, the Taxonomy Processor module 134 may submit the reformatted source taxonomy to the Category Content Processor module 136… In block 243, the Category Content Processor module 136 may extract features from each of the retrieved content items. The extracted features may be used to create a category content profile by determining relevant evidence terms from the content items that may be used to categorize a content item within a particular category of the taxonomy] in view of ¶0102[Intra-taxonomy mappings may associate categories in the same taxonomy to create taxonomies as hierarchical trees with categories having parent-child relationships. These relationships may partition the controlled vocabulary into sub-trees of categories, which may facilitate categorization and may improve usability for information retrieval] in view of ¶0117[One or more of the components of the system or systems embodying the present disclosure may comprise computer readable program code in the form of functional instructions stored in the computer-usable medium such that when the computer-usable medium is installed on the system or systems, those components cause the system to perform the functions described]; Examiner notes that hierarchical tree categories is comparable to an ascending order of product to category mappings where the top category includes all the categories and items within as seen on Fig. 5); and
analyzing (206), by the hierarchy establishing unit (9), the sorted list of category identifiers (13) and the related unique product identifier (5) mappings to discover an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each category identifier (6), ensuring that each category identifier (6) has at least one immediate superset category identifier (14) (Figs. 4 and 5[showing the superset category identifiers]; ¶0102[Intra-taxonomy mappings may associate categories in the same taxonomy to create taxonomies as hierarchical trees with categories having parent-child relationships. These relationships may partition the controlled vocabulary into sub-trees of categories, which may facilitate categorization and may improve usability for information retrieval] in view of ¶0114[The exemplary taxonomy management methods and apparatuses may be implemented using computer software and hardware information search and retrieval platforms for mobile devices, in analyzing and categorizing queries for information.]; Examiner notes that a parent is comparable to an immediate superset category identifier),
wherein the analysis comprises comparing the product identifier mappings of each category identifier with those of other category identifiers to determine if one category set is wholly contained within another category's product identifier set (Figs. 2-3; ¶0079[Starting at a root category, the Category Content Processor module 136 proceeds to each category within the source taxonomy and may complete each of blocks 241-245 discussed below. In block 241, the Category Content Processor module 136 may query the Content Source 150 associated with the source taxonomy for a category content item result set. The category content item result set may identify all of the content items in the source taxonomy associated with a particular category. For example, the category content item result set may include a list of the current news headlines or all the downloadable Pop music ringtones. For each content item in the category content item result, the Category Content Processor module 136 may identify a taxonomy category label, metadata associated with each content item, and also may scrape content of interest from websites/pages.] in view of ¶¶0087-0097[In block 320, the Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may prompt a user to select and/or build a comparator function. The comparator function may be used by the Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 to identify a match. A match may be defined as a relationship between content profiles being above a pre-specified threshold. The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may compare a first category profile to a second category profile to determine whether a match exists]; Examiner notes that a relationship between content profiles of categories is comparable to comparing the mappings of each category with those of other categories to determine if one category set is contained within another), and
assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category identifier (14), in response to identifying one or more category identifiers (6) that have an immediate superset category identifier (14) (Figs. 4 and 5[showing the superset category identifiers]; ¶0087[The comparator function may be used by the Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 to identify a match. A match may be defined as a relationship between content profiles being above a pre-specified threshold. The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may compare a first category profile to a second category profile to determine whether a match exists] in view of ¶0061[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may manage the process of creating the new taxonomies by merging one or more existing taxonomies using, for example, a tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a breadth-first search, and by comparing category content profiles generated by the Category Content Processor module 136.]; Examiner notes that merging categories with matching content is comparable to assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category in response to identifying categories),
wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to create a category identifier (20), initialized at once, as an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each of the category identifiers (6) that have an immediate superset category identifier (14) (Fig. 2; ¶¶0081-0082[In block 243, the Category Content Processor module 136 may extract features from each of the retrieved content items. The extracted features may be used to create a category content profile by determining relevant evidence terms from the content items that may be used to categorize a content item within a particular category of the taxonomy.]),
wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to discard, from the plurality of sorted category identifiers (6) from the sorted list (13) and that have at least one immediate superset category identifier (14) (Fig. 5; ¶0050[The Display Editor Role may permit a user to create, update, and delete their own display taxonomies and to read a limited selection from a reference taxonomy]);
generating the hierarchy of product categories representing the hierarchical relationships between the category identifiers (6), and the superset category identifiers (14), including any created category identifiers (20), wherein said hierarchy is stored in a non-transitory memory and rendered for display (Fig. 1[elements 111, 144, and 134] and Fig. 2; ¶¶0082-0084[In block 243, the Category Content Processor module 136 may extract features from each of the retrieved content items. The extracted features may be used to create a category content profile by determining relevant evidence terms from the content items that may be used to categorize a content item within a particular category of the taxonomy… In block 245, the Category Content Processor module 136 may store the category profile for each of the taxonomy categories in the Taxonomy Content Repository 144. The Category Content Processor module 136 may repeat blocks 241-245 for each category within the taxonomy.]).
Although Reuther discloses creating category identifiers, Reuther does not explicitly disclose categories that do not have an immediate superset category.
Although Reuther discloses creating category identifier, Reuther does not explicitly disclose creating a dummy category identifier for categories that do not have an immediate superset category identifier.
Although Reuther discloses generating a hierarchy of product categories, Reuther does not explicitly disclose creating dummy category identifiers.
However, Dom teaches creating a dummy category ID for a category that does not have an immediate category (Fig. 1; ¶0034[Categorizer 102 determines, for each product offer record received, which category in the target scheme is most appropriate for the product represented by the product offer record. In one embodiment, categorizer 102 determines both a target category, and a confidence value… When the confidence value for a particular product-to-category assignment is low (or the cost of miscategorization is high), the product offer record may be sent to quality asurance 110 for manual review. At quality assurance, a relatively more expansive analysis is performed on the product offer record to determine the appropriate target category for the product represented by the record.]; Examiner notes that a category ID that is being changed or corrected is comparable to a dummy category).
The method of Dom is applicable to the method of Reuther as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to item categorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization technique as disclosed by Reuther to include dummy category IDs as taught by Dom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Reuther in order to improve categorization accuracy within a product categorization system (¶0031).
Although Reuther discloses discarding from categories, Reuther in view of Dom does not explicitly teach discarding lists that have product count less than a predefined threshold (18).
However, Plevyak teaches discarding lists with less than a threshold content count (Fig. 4; ¶¶0062-0063[At step 418, it is determined whether any counters have dropped below a threshold value. According to an embodiment, the threshold may be set to 1. For example, one or more counters may drop to a value below 1 due to the decrementing in step 416. If it is determined at step 418, that one or more counters have dropped to less than the threshold, then at step 420, those entries with the counters below the threshold are removed from the priority queue. Note that when one or more entries are removed from the priority queue at step 420, the priority queue is no longer full.]).
The method of Plevyak is applicable to the method of Reuther in view of Dom as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are targeted to item categorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization technique as taught by Reuther in view of Dom to include dummy category IDs as taught by Dom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Reuther in view of Dom in order to yield improved performance, for example, by reducing the amount of re-ordering to be performed upon elements in the ordered set (¶0037).
Regarding Claim 13, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the method (212) as claimed in claim 10, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to discover the plurality of immediate subset category identifiers (19) for each immediate superset category identifier (14) by analysing the sorted list (13) of the category identifiers (6) and the plurality of their immediate superset category identifiers (14) (Fig. 5; ¶0072[The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 may provide creation and maintenance of a taxonomy (from multiple pre-existing taxonomies and their associated documents), intra-taxonomy mappings (between categories in the same taxonomy), inter-taxonomy category mappings (between categories in different taxonomy), categorization maintenance: mitigate category and evidence drift and obsolescence, generate taxonomy extension, categorization error analysis, and review and approval workflow for verifying taxonomy, category, evidence, and metadata creation, update, and translation.]; Examiner notes that analyzing intra taxonomy mapping is comparable to discovering immediate subset category identifiers for superset categories).
Regarding Claim 14 Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the method (214, 216) as claimed in claim 13, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to generate a complete category hierarchy (21) by using a tree traversal technique to recursively traverse through the plurality of immediate subset category identifiers (19) of each of the immediate superset category identifiers (14) starting from the category identifier (21) (Fig. 3; ¶0061[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may manage the process of creating the new taxonomies by merging one or more existing taxonomies using, for example, a tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a breadth-first search, and by comparing category content profiles generated by the Category Content Processor module 136.] in view of ¶0085[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may use an efficient tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a depth-first or breadth-first search to walk the first taxonomy and visit each category. The flow diagram may begin at block 310.]).
Although Reuther discloses creating category identifiers, Reuther does not explicitly disclose creating a dummy category identifier for categories.
However, Dom teaches creating a dummy category ID for a category that does not have an immediate category (Fig. 1; ¶0034[Categorizer 102 determines, for each product offer record received, which category in the target scheme is most appropriate for the product represented by the product offer record. In one embodiment, categorizer 102 determines both a target category, and a confidence value… When the confidence value for a particular product-to-category assignment is low (or the cost of miscategorization is high), the product offer record may be sent to quality asurance 110 for manual review. At quality assurance, a relatively more expansive analysis is performed on the product offer record to determine the appropriate target category for the product represented by the record.]; Examiner notes that a category ID that is being changed or corrected is comparable to a dummy category).
The method of Dom is applicable to the method of Reuther as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to item categorization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization technique as disclosed by Reuther to include dummy category IDs as taught by Dom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Reuther in order to improve categorization accuracy within a product categorization system (¶0031).
Regarding Claim 15, Reuther in view of Dom in view of Plevyak teaches the method (218, 220) as claimed in claim 14, Reuther further discloses wherein the hierarchy establishing unit (9) is adapted to traverse through the complete category hierarchy (21) to obtain a category- product relationship information (15) for each product with respect to each of its category identifiers (6), and category-category relationship information (8) related to correlation of each category identifiers (6) with respect to each other, wherein the category relationship information (8) comprises level-wise information (12), parent-child path (16), and child-parent path (17) amongst the category identifiers (6) (Fig. 3; ¶0085[The Taxonomy Merge Program module 138 may use an efficient tree traversal algorithm such as, but not limited to, a depth-first or breadth-first search to walk the first taxonomy and visit each category. The flow diagram may begin at block 310.] in view of ¶0072[The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 may provide creation and maintenance of a taxonomy (from multiple pre-existing taxonomies and their associated documents), intra-taxonomy mappings (between categories in the same taxonomy), inter-taxonomy category mappings (between categories in different taxonomy), categorization maintenance: mitigate category and evidence drift and obsolescence, generate taxonomy extension, categorization error analysis, and review and approval workflow for verifying taxonomy, category, evidence, and metadata creation, update, and translation. The Taxonomy Merge Program Module 138 also may analyze documents pre-classified at Content Sources 150 using source taxonomies to suggest mappings between taxonomy categories.]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 6 of the remarks filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims.
Accordingly, the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 of the remarks filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the previous Claim Interpretation 35 USC § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims.
Accordingly, the previous Claim Interpretation 35 USC § 112(f) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11 of the remarks filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the previous 35
USC § 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remarks that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP 2106.04, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception in Step 2A is now evaluated using a two-prong inquiry. Prong One asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under that prong, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 [“The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.”]). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04 instructs examiners to refer to the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes) in order to identify abstract ideas. As noted above and in the previous office action, the claims recite product search and recommendation. This is an abstract idea because it is a concept of business relations which makes it a method of organizing human activity (i.e., one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Furthermore, a system (100) for generating a hierarchy for product categories, the system (100) comprising: receive a dataset (2) from a user device (3), wherein the dataset (2) comprises a first mapping (4) related to unique product identifiers (5) each identifying one or more products mapped to one or more category identifiers (6) or a second mapping (7) related to unique category identifiers (6) mapped to one or more product identifiers (5); process the dataset (2) based on a predefined set of rules (11) to sort the category identifiers (6) in an ascending order based on a number of products identifiers (5) mapped to each of the category identifiers (6); analyse the sorted list (13) of category identifiers (6) and the related unique product identifier (5) mappings to discover an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each category identifier (6) such that each category identifier (6) shall be having at least one immediate superset category identifier (14), wherein the analysis comprises comparing the product identifier mappings of each category identifier with those of other category identifiers to determine if one category set is wholly contained within another category's product identifier set, and assigning the containing category as the immediate superset category identifier (14), in response to identifying one or more category identifiers (6) that do not have an immediate superset category identifier (14), create a dummy category identifier (20), initialized at once, as an immediate superset category identifier (14) for each of the category identifiers (6) that do not have an immediate superset category identifier (14), discard, from the plurality of sorted category identifiers (6) from the sorted list (13) that have product count less than a predefined threshold (18) and that have at least one immediate superset category identifier (14); generate the hierarchy of product categories representing the hierarchical relationships between the category identifiers (6), and the superset category identifiers (14), including any created dummy category identifiers (20), wherein said hierarchy is stored are all part of the abstract idea. The mere execution of the abstract idea on generic components such as, an input unit, a hierarchy establishing unit, a processor, and a memory which are recited at a high-level does not integrate the abstract idea in a practical application or provide a technical improvement. The components are described as generic and at a high-level in Figs. 2a-2c and pages 10-12 of the instant specification.
Applicant argues on pages 10—11 of the remarks that the input unit and the hierarchy-establishing unit are not generic tools and provide an improvement in computer functionality. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Receiving structured datasets comprising product-category or category-product mappings from a user and to normalize these mappings into a unified internal format that can be processed are all part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, performing a sequence of defined algorithmic operations that include: sorting category identifiers based on mapped product counts; comparing product-identifier sets across all categories to determine whole-set containment relationships; generating dummy category identifiers for uncontained categories; pruning categories below a quantitative threshold; and generating and storing a complete hierarchy data structure and downstream computation are also part of the abstract idea. The mere execution of the abstract idea on an “input unit”, a “hierarchy-establishing unit”, or a “device” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide a technical improvement. The cited pages 10-12 and Fig. 1 of the instant specification recite that the input and hierarchy-establishing units are examples of generic and high-level processes that receive and process a dataset.
Applicant further argues that the amended claims are analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish reflected an improvement to computer functionality and its specification described the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Unlike the claims in Enfish, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims do not pertain to an “improvement” to the functioning of a computer or to another technology (see MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a)). The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Furthermore, claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept, refer to the MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Applicant provides an understanding of the invention on pages 11-18 of the remarks. It is noted that certain features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the invention is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 18-29 of the remarks filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 102/103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive
Applicant argues that Reuther fails to disclose “mathematical containment comparison of explicit products sets” in pages 23-24 of the remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reuther discloses a “comparator function” that is used by a taxonomy program to identify matches between categories, see ¶¶0087-0097. Reuther further discloses that a match is defined as a relationship between the content of the categories being above a pre-determined threshold. Examiner notes that the comparison between categories of products is comparable to a mathematical containment comparison of product datasets. See ¶0115 of Reuther where it is disclosed that categories contain products. Examiner further notes that the instant specification does not disclose a “mathematical” containment comparison of product sets as argued by the applicant.
Applicant further argues that Reuther fails to disclose “creating a dummy or artificial root node to guarantee structural completeness” and “threshold-based pruning,” in pages 24-25 of the remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reuther discloses a Category Content Processor module that extracts features from retrieved content items that are used to create category content profile by determining relevant terms from the content items that can be used to categorize content items within a taxonomy, see ¶¶0076-0082. Examiner notes that the aforementioned process is comparable to creating a category identifier as an immediate superset category identifier. Reuther does not explicitly disclose a dummy category identifier for categories that do not have an identifier. However, reference Dom teaches creating a” dummy” category. According to page 4 of the instant specification, if a category does not have an immediate superset category identifier, a unit creates a “dummy” category identifier as an immediate superset category identifier for that category. Dom describes a categorizer that determines categories for products. According to Dom, when the confidence value for a product category assignment is low, the product undergoes a manual review where the proper category for the product is determined, see ¶0034. Examiner notes that the initial category ID assigned to a product is comparable to a “dummy” category as described in the instant specification. As per MPEP 2111, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Applicant’s arguments regarding comparison of products sets, creation of a dummy node, and threshold-based pruning are a narrow interpretation of the claims.
Applicant argues on pages 25 and 26 of the remarks that Dom does not teach a “dummy” node. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously, Dom describes a categorizer that determines categories for products. According to page 4 of the instant specification, if a category does not have an immediate superset category identifier, a unit creates a “dummy” category identifier as an immediate superset category identifier for that category. According to Dom, when the confidence value for a product category assignment is low, the product undergoes a manual review where the proper category for the product is determined, see ¶0034. The initial category that the product is under in reference Dom is comparable to the “dummy” category as it is described in the noted page 4 of the instant specification. Dom’s initial category is a category assigned prior to correct assignment of a category to the item which is comparable to a dummy category as an immediate category for items without one.
Applicant argues on page 26 of the remarks that there is no motivation to combine references Reuther and Dom. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously in the office action, the systems of Reuther and Dom are both targeted to the categorization of items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the categorization of Reuther to include having dummy category IDs as taught by Tom in order to improve categorization accuracy within a product categorization system, see ¶0031 of Dom.
Applicant argues on page 27 of the remarks that Plevyak fails to teach discarding lists with product counts less than a threshold. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Plevyak teaches determining counters being dropped below a threshold value. According to Plevyak, a threshold is preset to a numerical value and when a counter drops below that set value, an entry will be removed from a priority queue. Examiner notes that the aforementioned process is comparable to discarding lists that have product counts less than a predefined threshold as stated in the amended claims. Applicant’s arguments regarding “product-count-based pruning” are a narrow interpretation of the claims. As per MPEP 2111, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
Applicant argues further on page 28 that the combining of reference Plevyak to Reuther in view of Dom is improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously, the system of Plevyak is applicable to the system of Reuther in view of Dom as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, all references are targeted to categorization of items and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the system of Reuther in view of Dom in order yield improved performance, for example, by reducing the amount of re-ordering to be performed upon elements in the ordered set, see ¶0037 of Plevyak.
Accordingly, references Reuther, Dom, and Plevyak have been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AHOORA LADONI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/9/2026